THOMAS SWINDLE, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
LEONEAL DAVIS, WARDEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA, RESPONDENTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Federal habeas relief is not available for newly discovered evidence that only goes to guilt or innocence, and ineffective assistance of counsel claims require showing deficient performance and prejudice.
Appellant, convicted of manslaughter, sought federal habeas relief based on newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. The distr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Habeas Corpus Relief cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Appellant, Thomas Swindle, was convicted of manslaughter in Tuscaloosa County, Alabama and was sentenced to twelve years of imprisonment. He filed a petition pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2254 in the district court alleging several grounds for relief. The court adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, appellant argues that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning his claim of newly discovered evidence. We affirm the judgment of the district court.
The magistrate and district court correctly recognized that federal habeas relief is available on the grounds of newly discovered evidence only where the evidence bears on the constitutionality of the petitioner’s detention. See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 83 S.Ct. 745, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). Newly discovered evidence which goes only to the guilt or innocence of the petitioner is not sufficient to require habeas relief. Smith v. Wainwright, 741 F. 2d 1248 (11th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1087, 105 S.Ct. 1853, 85 L.Ed.2d 150 (1985). Appellant’s newly discovered evidence consists of testimony that the victim was killed by another individual in an altercation which followed the appellant’s altercation with the victim. This evidence clearly goes to the question of Swindle’s guilt or innocence. He concedes that the state was unaware of this evidence at the time of trial and that the state did not solicit false evidence. Thus, the newly discovered evidence does not bear on the constitutionality of appellant’s incarceration and this claim does not establish a ground for habeas relief.
In an attempt to establish a constitutional violation appellant also argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel failed to discover and present this new evidence. As the magistrate and district court found, appellant’s allegation failed to show that his counsel’s efforts fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or that any error might have affected the fairness of his trial. Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Thus, appellant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (U.S. 1993)…not a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. See, e. g., Boyd v. Puckett, 905 F. 2d 895, 896-897 (CA5), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 988 (1990); Stockton v. Virginia, 852 F. 2d 740, 749 (CA4 1988), cert. denied, 489 U. S. 1071 (1989); Swindle v. Davis, 846 F. 2d 706, 707 (CA11 1988) (per curiam); Byrd v. Armontrout, 880 F. 2d 1, 8 (CA8 1989), cert. denied, 494 U. S. 1019 (1990); Burks v. Egeler, 512 F. 2d 221, 230 (CA6), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 937 (1975). I do not understand it to be the import of today’s de…
-
Coogan v. McCAUGHTRY, 958 F.2d 793 (7th Cir. 1992)…overed evidence that bears only on the question of guilt or innocence is not reviewable by a federal court on a motion for habeas corpus relief. Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317, 83 S.Ct. 745, 759, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963). See also Swindle v. Davis, 846 F. 2d 706, 707 (11th Cir.1988) (per curiam); Armstead v. Maggio, 720 F. 2d 894, 896-97 (5th Cir.1983) (per curiam); United States ex rel. Milone v. Camp, 643 F.Supp. 679, 685 (N.D.Ill.1986). Federal courts are empowered to grant habeas relief only on a showin…
-
Jones v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (M.D. Fla. 2019)…ew. Arguments about the existence or weight of newly discovered evidence potentially relevant to the guilt of a state prisoner— as opposed to the constitutionality of incarceration—do not provide grounds for federal habeas relief. Swindle v. Davis, 846 F. 2d 706, 707 (11th Cir. 1988). Therefore, the only potential claim properly presented in Ground III is that the postconviction court made an unreasonable determination of the law for a Brady violation. Following an evidentiary hearing, the state postconvi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984)
- Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1963)
- Smith v. Louie L. Wainwright, 741 F.2d 1248 (11th Cir. 1984)
- Solomon v. Harris, 470 U.S. 1087 (U.S. 1985)
- Lott v. United States, 470 U.S. 1087 (U.S. 1985)